NEWS Why Haas Rejected 6m Offer

[Kimlo]

You know it's totally an option not to believe journo BS?

Let it play out, if/when the club/Haas/his management comment, we can play the discussion then.

Seems a lot of stress and **** this guy and that guy before a single thing is on the record.

 

[McHunt]

Also, how would he derail the rest of the season? If he plays below what he has been putting in week in week out, wouldnt that also be a breach of contract or rules that would see him de-registered?

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

Confirmed Haas agent is actively shopping him around. Sauce is worried Haas has already decided and will derail the rest of the season. Rooster have knocked him back on 1mil. Unsure of details below that.

Man, haas is getting some bad advice.....

 

[McHunt]

Who the **** shops their client around three years in advance? No one, that's who.

For sure they are looking for an early release.

The Broncos are driving the contract talks three years out forcing Payne to address his future now. Payne's management need to do due diligence in advising him whether the Broncos deal is the best he can get. They can only do that by feeling out the market. That's without even getting into the conspiracy theory behind the agent's network, which isn't to ignore it.

 

[Midean]

The Broncos are driving the contract talks three years out forcing Payne to address his future now. Payne's management need to do due diligence in advising him whether the Broncos deal is the best he can get. They can only do that by feeling out the market. That's without even getting into the conspiracy theory behind the agent's network, which isn't to ignore it.

They offered him an extension, thats very different to your manager shopping you around.

 

[Midean]

You know it's totally an option not to believe journo BS?

Let it play out, if/when the club/Haas/his management comment, we can play the discussion then.

Seems a lot of stress and **** this guy and that guy before a single thing is on the record.

I mean, the same was said a week ago when this was first brought to light, and it has evolved and here we are, i think its natural to make assumptions based on a fluid situation.

Obviously its best to be cautious and take everything with a grain of salt, but when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.

 

[lynx000]

I never said he was a "free agent." You imagined that.


It's not an extension. It's a new contract that overrides the payment terms of the existing one.


Thanks for the job reference.

I never said he can sign with a new club. But of course, before "upgrading" his new contract, he would see what other clubs would offer him. He is not free to join those clubs if he refuses the new contract during his existing tenure, but he could join them during the proposed extension period.

And this is exactly what is happening.

But you're forgetting he's been in court contesting the conditions under which he signed his contract. We're assuming his contract is still valid. There have been questions raised. Do you have those answers?

Plus, if Payne is unhappy at the club - and there's no suggestion of that - he could apply for a release and another club might buy out his contract. Or the club could take the hit and not play him. In either case, he could talk to another club about money.

The essence being if the club is talking about "upgrading" or "extending" his existing contract they are effectively "ripping" the old one up and supplanting it with an entirely new one. Before Payne signs that he will want to know his options.

I don't know how many times you have to be told that there is no challenge to the validity of his contract with us before it will sink in.

PS, it is possible to actually vary the terms of a contract that is on foot with the consent of both parties. It is not necessarily a new contract.

 

[McHunt]

They offered him an extension, thats very different to your manager shopping you around.

And his agent is taking that extension to market.

 

[Midean]

And his agent is taking that extension to market.

3 years in advance?

 

[Kimlo]

I mean, the same was said a week ago when this was first brought to light, and it has evolved and here we are, i think its natural to make assumptions based on a fluid situation.

Obviously its best to be cautious and take everything with a grain of salt, but when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.

We've heard DCE is leaving his contract for like 8 years and JT was apparently out the door 12 months ago. Luke Brooks has apparenlty been asking for a release for years. There's heaps more examples out there, a lot of the time it eventuates to absolutely nothing.

 

[McHunt]

I don't know how many times you have to be told that there is no challenge to the validity of his contract with us before it will sink in.

PS, it is possible to actually vary the terms of a contract that is on foot with the consent of both parties. It is not necessarily a new contract.

Sure, but at this point we're mincing words about what constitutes a "contract." Perhaps we should call it a "deal" to avoid getting into a shouting match over legal definitions. The new "deal" is different from the old "deal."

I didn't ignore you saying there is no challenge to the validity of his contract, but I have read that there might be knock-on effects. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm asking where you got this information.

You keep saying the source is "trust me" but not the media. You're an anonymous poster. I understand your argument, but I don't see you posting anything to back it up.

 

[McHunt]

3 years in advance?

For the life of me I don't know why you need this explained. The "3 years in advance" is being negotiated now. The Broncos are pushing it. Payne needs to think about what lies three years out for him. He's flicked that research out to his agent, who necessarily must gauge the market.

It doesn't mean he won't accept the Broncos offer.

 

[Midean]

We've heard DCE is leaving his contract for like 8 years and JT was apparently out the door 12 months ago. Luke Brooks has apparenlty been asking for a release for years. There's heaps more examples out there, a lot of the time it eventuates to absolutely nothing.

Yea i agree, i just dont recall DCE or JT being surrounded by another clubs cronies who have also been known to get out of contracts early and defect to other clubs.

Also i think DCE was most notably going to the Titans, who are not exactly in the same golf game league as the Roosters and Politis.

 

[Midean]

For the life of me I don't know why you need this explained. The "3 years in advance" is being negotiated now. The Broncos are pushing it. Payne needs to think about what lies three years out for him. He's flicked that research out to his agent, who necessarily must gauge the market.

It doesn't mean he won't accept the Broncos offer.

I guess i just don't see how extending a contract based on current value can be equated to his value in 3 years time?

He could win a premiership and 3 dally M's in the next 3 years and his value would skyrocket, so my brain automatically thinks his manager is testing the market for his price right now.

Im probably completely wrong, but thats just how my NRL math works haha.

 

[McHunt]

I guess i just don't see how extending a contract based on current value can be equated to his value in 3 years time?

He could win a premiership and 3 dally M's in the next 3 years and his value would skyrocket, so my brain automatically thinks his manager is testing the market for his price right now.

Im probably completely wrong, but thats just how my NRL math works haha.

The club could be seen as either panicking about losing him or wanting to reward him for being pretty much the only player deserving of being a Bronco. Either way, they're asking Payne to take a punt on whether the price the Broncos are putting on his head in three years is better or worse than what it would be if he were to keep his options open.

Don't lose sight that the Broncos are driving this urgency, and that it's about their best interests, not necessarily Payne's. Perhaps Payne would like to have his future locked up so it's something he doesn't need to worry about. But his financial manager must do his own sums, otherwise he's not doing his job.

 

[lynx000]

Sure, but at this point we're mincing words about what constitutes a "contract." Perhaps we should call it a "deal" to avoid getting into a shouting match over legal definitions. The new "deal" is different from the old "deal."

I didn't ignore you saying there is no challenge to the validity of his contract, but I have read that there might be knock-on effects. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm asking where you got this information.

You keep saying the source is "trust me" but not the media. You're an anonymous poster.

For the third or fourth time I think now.

Firstly, you understand that we are talking two contracts here.
Haas has a contract with Orr's agency. That contract addresses the terms of Orr's business as his agent including the commission he is entitled to, the obligations of each parties.

Separately, Haas has an NRL player's contract with the Broncos.

The contract that is the subject of the legal dispute is the first contract. That is the contract that Haas is attempting to have voided, not the second contract.

How do I know this, because that is what has been reported, Haas has confirmed that he is here until 2024 and there has been no mention of him challenging the Broncos contract.

I have checked the QLD and NSW court registries and no court action has been filed by Haas against the Broncos.

In the proceedings against Pacific Sports Management, the court cannot make an order invalidating or voiding the separate contract with the Broncos unless the Broncos are a party to the litigation (they are not) and are given a right to be heard.

That is the source of my information. The basis of my opninion is 28 years of practice, 3 law degrees and over 300 trials.

Can I ask you for your sources for the contrary view that the contract with the Broncos is at risk because of these court proceedings?

 

[Sproj]

We've heard DCE is leaving his contract for like 8 years and JT was apparently out the door 12 months ago. Luke Brooks has apparenlty been asking for a release for years. There's heaps more examples out there, a lot of the time it eventuates to absolutely nothing.

All he needs to do is come out on Twitter or whatever and say it’s a load of rubbish, none of this is true and everyone is back behind him. I suspect he can’t though.

 

[Midean]

For the third or fourth time I think now.

Firstly, you understand that we are talking two contracts here.
Haas has a contract with Orr's agency. That contract addresses the terms of Orr's business as his agent including the commission he is entitled to, the obligations of each parties.

Separately, Haas has an NRL player's contract with the Broncos.

The contract that is the subject of the legal dispute is the first contract. That is the contract that Haas is attempting to have voided, not the second contract.

How do I know this, because that is what has been reported, Haas has confirmed that he is here until 2024 and there has been no mention of him challenging the Broncos contract.

I have checked the QLD and NSW court registries and no court action has been filed by Haas against the Broncos.

In the proceedings against Pacific Sports Management, the court cannot make an order invalidating or voiding the separate contract with the Broncos unless the Broncos are a party to the litigation (they are not) and are given a right to be heard.

That is the source of my information. The basis of my opninion is 28 years of practice, 3 law degrees and over 300 trials.

Can I ask you for your sources for the contrary view that the contract with the Broncos is at risk because of these court proceedings?

You forgot to /micdrop at the end.